Moody -- "Types"--Where Are the Bleeding Hearts? (loooong)

[btk6y]

No: HPFGUIDX 34004

   First, let me thank you for your articulate, calm and well-
reasoned post.  I knew the post that I was sending was inflammatory 
and contained a lot of "you" stereotypes, and I knew that I probably 
should not have sent it (I am really not the hothead that I come 
across as in the post).  I was under a bit of a time crunch, though, 
and thought that if nothing else it would start a dialogue... but I 
thank you for the reasoned and tempered response.  So let's start off 
point-for-point (and I'll do my best to keep this relevant to 
Potterverse)...

1)  I knew that I was making assumptions and stereotypes about your 
political beliefs while I was writing the post and really regretted 
doing so because that was what had annoyed me about your post 
(lumping law-enforcement, etc under the "Law-and-Order Fascist"... I 
do very much appreciate that you recognized the stereotype.).  Only a 
lack of time prevented me from a more tempered response and I debated 
sending the post at all... but no more excuses and back to Potter...

2)  I agree that there are no "bleeding-heart liberal" stereotypes in 
Potterlore and there is a reason for it.  The time when Voldemort was 
in power was essentially a time of war, and it is a lot more 
difficult to justify that sort of stereotypical attitude in such dire 
times.  JKR does an excellent job in acknowledging the dangers of 
ruthless law enforcement, but in a reasoned manner.  Example- Crouch 
is clearly set as a "bad" example of power-hungry law enforcement, 
while Moody is set up as a "good" example.  The KEY difference 
between the two is that Crouch's goals are not so much eradication of 
the Dark Side, but pursuit of personal power, while Moody is 
concerned solely with the eradication of the Dark Side and protecting 
the general populace.  Now, in the real world, identifying the 
difference between these two types of people is problematic and one 
may not be able to discern what, exactly, is in a person's heart.  
But in the world of Potter, we are able to discern what is in a 
character's heart by JKR's writing and clues, and Crouch's pursuit of 
power and Moody's pursuit of safety is clear, I believe.   By 
creating these two characters, she does a fantastic job of addressing 
a touchy issue.  On one hand, with Crouch, she acknowledges the 
danger of a militarized state in the name of peace.  However, with 
Moody she acknowledges that to fight evil, sometimes you have to get 
a little dirty yourself.  Moody's tactics may be questionable, but 
his motives are clear and just, and they are SUCCESSFUL.  This is not 
a case of the ends justifying the means, only one of practicality.  
You sometimes CANNOT bring hardened criminals to justice doing 
everything "by the book".  More on Moody later... but because the 
world of Voldemort is basically a war-time era, JKR is not really 
able to introduce a believable "bleeding-heart" liberal stereotype 
because that viewpoint simply does not wash in a time of war.  She 
succeeds in bringing attention to those issues in a more reasoned 
way, by juxtaposing Crouch and Moody.

3)  You previously wrote: 
> I do not think it unreasonable to subject people who have been
> granted special license to interrogate (even under torture, if 
> they so choose)and to kill to a higher-than-ordinary degree of 
> scrutiny.  
No argument here.

>Nor have I ever expressed 
> any doubts that Moody really *did* try to avoid killing whenever 
> he could, even though the only evidence we have for this is
> Sirius' claim.  I don't think that I've at all withheld the
> benefit of the doubt from the Aurors.
> Nor can I think of anywhere where I have granted extraordinary
> benefit of the doubt to the Death Eaters.  I've never tried to
> argue, for example, that Lucius Malfoy really *was* under the
> Imperiatus Curse (of course he wasn't!), or that maybe the
> Lestranges were framed, or that perhaps Voldemort is just this
> nice guy who had a bad childhood and has simply been terribly 
> misunderstood.  I've not made _any_ of those arguments, nor 
> would I want to.  So where do you see me granting more benefit 
> of the doubt to the law-breakers than to the law-enforcers?

See, this is the problem that I was trying to address in my last 
post, but it is a nebulous area.  In the above quotation, you 
acknowledge Moody did not try to kill, Frank Longbottom was 
reasonable, Lucius Malfoy was not actually under the Imperius Curse, 
etc.  I believe that any reasonable person would of course 
acknowledge the above because it is all as clear as day based on 
JKR's writing.  You are a reasonable person, obviously, and I don't 
disagree with the *content* of your post.  What I do disagree with is 
the tone of the post.  You previously wrote:

>I don't like Moody. 
>I really don't care for him at all. He strikes me as the 
>sort of person who would happily strip away all of my civil 
>liberties, given half the chance, and I consider such men a 
>serious threat to civilized society.

This is the part that really set the tone for the entire post.  I 
don't want to come across as attacking you, so let's just say that a 
writer for the Daily Prophet wrote the above quotation.  Crouch is 
definitely the type of person who would rejoice in stripping away 
civil liberties and is a threat to civilized society, as JKR means 
him to be.  However, Moody has spent his life fighting the bad guys 
for all the right reasons.  He has lost his leg, his eye, and a large 
chunk of his nose.  He never asks for thanks, or power, or riches.  
And what does he have to show for it?  A writer for the Daily 
Prophet, who has never actually fought anyone from the Dark Side, 
believes Moody to be a threat to civilized society.  Is that fair?  
In a perfect world Moody would be able to catch all the Death Eaters 
in totally legitimate way, but frankly speaking this is not a perfect 
world and to expect him to do that is completely out of touch with 
the reality of evil.  This, then, goes back to my previous point 
about looking at motives, rather than actions, which is easier to do 
in Potter's world than in the real world.  When I said that criminals 
are granted more benefit of the doubt than law-enforcement, what I 
meant was that criminals are always, always presumed innocent until 
proven guilty (which they obviously should be).  However, there is no 
mechanism to acknowledge the fact that law-enforcement have their 
hands tied behind there back 99% of the time while criminals/Death 
Eaters do not, and if a well-meaning Auror uses questionable means to 
procure a Death Eater, then he is the bad guy.  

4)  You wrote:
> Which of my philosophies do you mean, precisely?  The political
> philosophy, which holds that Aurors who descend to the level of
> Death Eaters are Seriously Bad News?  
Of course not.

>Or the personal philosophy,
> which states: "I neither like nor trust the sort of men who 
> torture students, refer to their enemies as 'scum' and 'filth,' 
> show no signs of remorse over killing, approve of the use of 
> dementors as prison guards, and advocate breaking faith with 
> captives?"
Yes, this I disagree with wholeheartedly.  Believe it or not, 
Karkaroff is "scum" and "filth".  We know that he helped Death Eaters 
torture those who would not submit to Voldemort.  "Scum" and "filth" 
are probably hyperbole, but the fact remains that Karkaroff is a bad 
dude.  
    Speaking of hyperbole, characterizing Moody/Crouch's treatment of 
Malfoy as torture is quite a stretch.  The fact of the matter is that 
Malfoy attacked Harry, with the intent to injure, when Harry's back 
was turned, thus able to inflict the most disabling injury.  
Moody/Crouch's treatment did not injure Malfoy, just embarrassed 
him.  Again, in a perfect world of logic and reason, should 
Moody/Crouch have turned Draco into a ferret and bounced him?  Of 
course not.  But what do you think kept Draco from attacking Harry 
again, a talk with Head of House or fear of Moody?  Look, this is 
obviously a slippery slope here and we can't condone what Moody did.  
Even though we can argue Malfoy deserved it in this specific case, we 
can't allow teachers to do that to students across the board.  But I 
don't think we have to classify Moody as someone that "tortures" 
students and forget all of the good he has done for the magical 
world.  
     About breaking faith with prisoners, Moody was wrong about that- 
but not because that would mean Karkaroff was mistreated.  Karkaroff 
deserved imprisonment for his crimes, but one cannot run a law 
enforcement organization if criminals cannot trust the police to hold 
up their end in a plea bargain, so he was wrong in a practical sense, 
but not in a moral sense.  I could talk about the dementors also, but 
this post is already way too long.

     So that's my viewpoint in a pretty large nutshell.  Although my 
previous post was not well-worded in many ways, I do still believe 
that this is a fundamental difference in philosophy about where you 
want to live on that continuum (rights vs. safety).  My basic 
disagreement was that 
1) you disliked Moody even though he gave his life to protecting the 
populace with no other designs for power, riches, etc... and also
2) you seem to expect everything- for the Death Eaters to all be 
caught and peace restored but for it to be done exactly right.  
Everyone wants that, of course, but sometimes that is just not 
reality and you have to choose.  I place my faith in Moody to trust 
his heart and do what is right to keep the Potter-world safe.

Bobby
ps- I am actually not in law enforcment.